Why didn't the USA try to push out towards building it's own empire?

[Crazy Boris]

I believe that The United States of America has not yet created an Empire because it is still developing into a unitary state.
Many people, both in the US, but especially outside it think of and treat the US as a unitary state when it is far from being one, but it is becoming one more and more each day and year.
It is clear at its founding it was not a unitary state and this pattern continued through the Civil War, which was not like other nations civil wars because it was instead only partly a civil war where their was a mixture of sentiments. Otherwise it was a war between States, in many ways small nation states which had been in a combination trade Union and military alliance.

Who’s to say a federal state can’t be an empire? Both Mexican Empires were federal states, and the British Raj arguably had a quasi-federal structure between the provinces, presidencies, and princely states. The vast majority of empires are unitary, but I don’t think that’s nevessarily a requirement

 

[BELFAST]

Who’s to say a federal state can’t be an empire? Both Mexican Empires were federal states, and the British Raj arguably had a quasi-federal structure between the provinces, presidencies, and princely states. The vast majority of empires are unitary, but I don’t think that’s nevessarily a requirement

By the time the Americans had built the large federal union we know today, there was not much land on earth the other empires had not already taken.
Post world war 2 the empires found it too expensive to run empires directly and found controlling the former colonies by indirect means much cheaper.
Then there was all that spending on the cold war to divert attention from direct empire building.

 

[Elfwine]

That doesn't change that the US had already built an empire well before WWII.

 

[Fleurs de Merde]

westward lands which americans conquered but the parliament deprived them of

That's one way to put it. Alternately the British crown, which the settlers were subjects of, had signed treaties with the indigenous peoples who held the land. The settlers decided not to respect those treaties when they could instead simply take a gun and grab some land. This is like arguing that the police deprived you of jewels you picked up in a smash and grab fifteen minutes ago.

 

[octoberman]

That's one way to put it. Alternately the British crown, which the settlers were subjects of, had signed treaties with the indigenous peoples who held the land. The settlers decided not to respect those treaties when they could instead simply take a gun and grab some land. This is like arguing that the police deprived you of jewels you picked up in a smash and grab fifteen minutes ago.

but in this case it was the police who picked up the jewels in a smash and grab with it succeeding only because of my help in a legal procedure and later depriving of my share in loot

 

[Crazy Boris]

but in this case it was the police who picked up the jewels in a smash and grab with it succeeding only because of my help in a legal procedure and later depriving of my share in loot

But the British explicitly wanted settlers to stay out of that territory, it was designated as an Indian reserve and they had an interest in keeping good relations with those tribes. It’s more like the police tell you not to take the jewels and they have an obligation to the jeweller to guard them after seeing you eyeing the gems up and getting handsy with the display case, and then you do the smash and grab anyways. And you also give the jeweller smallpox.

 

[octoberman]

It’s more like the police tell you not to take the jewels and they have an obligation to the jeweller to guard them after seeing you eyeing the gems up and getting handsy with the display case, and then you do the smash and grab anyways.

jewels were already take by brits only winning because colonist support but they wanted keep for themselves. Natives didn't come with open arms in to the empire. They were subdued only due american support in the french and indian war and brits wanted keep the jewel for themselves like a backstabing theif

you also give the jeweller smallpox.

which was done by a briton

 

[NoBull]

What I am referring to as there actually not being a Unitary State for the US was that for much of its history the peoples of it were engaged in nation building. This nation building has some rather odd characteristics which has delayed the formation of Empire.
First there was the decision not to create a single state but a number of them which competed and cooperated, the most notable one being New York, the Empire State.
This meant that territory was not incorporated into existing states as it was added, nor was it added to a single Federal administration, but instead after a relatively brief period of Federal administration it was allowed to form another state. This process took much of the energy and focus of what otherwise might have gone into the creation of a true Empire. And, as most of the new States became states well before they were able to efficiently handle their own affairs due to them having relatively low populations and large areas, the era of Nation Building actually lasted a bit longer than how organized and settled the Continental US appeared.

A number of years later with the incorporation of Hawaii as a State that pattern is repeated in what arguably was the incorporation of the US’s first act of Colonialism, the conquest of a legitimate nation State and its wholesale incorporation into the US system.

That I believe is the key concept. Empires conquer other nation states, eliminate their identity as such and incorporate them into the Empire. The US has done this partially to Mexico, but I maintain only partially as Texas while eventually incorporated into the US separated from Mexico due to a war of Independence. The local political elites chafed under rule from Mexico City and both the Spanish settler defendants and those more recent ones from the US fought together against that domination. Only later did the US settler descendants come to dominate Texas.

California, well again Mexico made the mistake of encouraging US colonists who again decided they didn’t want to be dominated by Mexico City and following the model of Texas fought a war of independence, and then as with Texas applied for and was permitted to join the US.

As I see it the people of US could have decided to engage in full Empire building and likely would have if their population was higher.

The nations of Europe did not engage in Empire building and Colonialism until they had sufficient populations and population densities along with a lack of adjacent territories that were seen as easily conquerable. For a long time the US had plenty of places to conquer that were close and with foes, both indigenous and other nation states which this could and did occur.

I believe that post WW2 that if the US population had been what it is today, that the US would have built an Empire at that time, but given it’s relatively low population it instead became a place that increased its immigrant population and continued in its progression in nation building and formation of a Unitary State.

And as been indicated by others throughout this period and even before there has been some tentative action which might have lead to Empire, but did not, notably in regard to the Philippines and Cuba. Why it did not, I suspect nativism on the part of US voters. Politically it was not possible for their incorporation into the US system and so instead each gained their independence.

Note, this nativist sentiment and its political effect also undercut the various occurrences when other nation states actually asked to join the US and were rebuffed. I suspect however if a nation State which did not create nativist opposition asked to join the US they likely would be allowed to.

 

[NoBull]

What I am cautioning, and what others have mentioned in regard to the US modeling itself as a Republic is YET.
If the US resolves its internal conflicts, and stops being a Republic, as it has a sufficient population density, it likely will begin to actively engage in Empire building instead of just individuals and small groups of individuals making tentative steps towards this.
Basically this is a warning, if the US experiment in Democracy fails, Empirical ambitions with significant resources behind them will likely arise. Given the US military is the largest in the world by amounts spent on it, and given how in the past it has been used to protect US interests as well as the interests and ambitions of some small but powerful groups, the temptation will be too great to resist.
So, perhaps the mirror universe of Star Trek lore is simply that having occurred.
And what happens when Yankee doesn’t go home, nor even pretend to respect local authorities and traditions.
If you think the global imprint of the US is annoying and troublesome now, just wait. Remember the US Military is a Professional Volunteer military. It is made up of those who want to serve in it, some due to Patriotism and some because it is their best opportunity for social and economic advancement, and the US has a lot of angry gun toting economically underperforming people.
Empires in the past have largely been the product of wealthy elites. Yes, they used their own poor and marginalized for soldiers, but it wasn’t a mass, we are in this all together. A US Empire would be a multi racial, multi cultural, religiously plural meritocratic organization, staffed largely by a group of people whose ancestors were either kicked out of or fled from most every other place in the planet. So, Canada is likely safe, no one is particularly mad at it, but other places?